Arguably? You're shitting your pants over *arguably*? I'm pretty sure both of those guys are old as hell too.

"Let's build a team via free agency and pay out the nose! We'll win the Super Bowl every year!"

Signed, Daniel Snyder.

Newberry retired, and it's doubtful Birk would have come to KC unless you paid him huge money - he's on his last contract, and wanted to play for a winner.

No, no, they would have BOTH come here and we'd be winning now if they had.

Do you watch Niswanger play? He's ****ing terrible.

Im trying to prove a point. They're cleary better then Niswanger. I'd rather have Matt birk then Niswanger. And Im sure 90% of the critics and the people around the league would too.

So what's the next solution? draft?

It's kind of hard to be disappointed when you don't have any expectations.

ROFL

I wouldn't have been all that active in free agency. I wouldn't have switched to a 3-4, so there was no need to sign Canty or Olshansky, although those would have been solid moves given our switch.

Obviously, I would have drafted Sanchez in the first. Looking back, I thought that Mauluga was the best value at 34 at the time of the draft, but I was really high on Max Unger.

1: Sanchez
2: Unger
3: Jarron Gilbert (probably have him take Hali's spot at LDE)
4: Sidbury
5: Robinson
6: Coye Francies (really liked him)
7a: AQ Shipley
7b: (No O'Connell Trade): Darry Beckwith

I was of the mindset that if we were going to draft a rookie QB, I wouldn't trade Tony, because I'd use him as a safety valve after inserting the rookie post-bye week.

Our LB corps would still suck, but that was a pretty bad class for LB depth, IMO.

So your solution is to dramatically overpay for a guy you'll get two or three years out of, maybe only one of them any good. Hell, how many guys have you seen sign a fat-ass final contract and then just ride it out instead of trying to be great?

If the salary cap didn't exist and didn't age your plan is great.

Yes, if you want to win in the NFL you got to draft your roster. I'm more pissed off by the shitty draft than them not signing any players. Hell Indy, San Diego, and Pittsburgh hardly ever use free agency. And they are in markets similar to ours.

You draft your stars. You bring in free agents to fill holes. On rare occasion a good free agent goes cheap and you take them. It isn't rocket science. Indy does it, NE does it, Green Bay does it...

I'd have been fine with this approach too. But the Chiefs would still suck this year.

There is no ****ing doubt about that. But it would be a young foundation, IMO.

Honestly, they'd probably be a 2-4 win team if they stayed with Tony, groomed a new QB to put in after the bye, and stayed in the 4-3. That probably puts them in the Carlos Dunlap/Taylor Mays/Eric Berry wheelhouse.

You get any one of those three and team them with a few new LBs, and I think you have a damn good defense.

Your right. Ive seen it various times, but that shouldn't neglect FA?

FA is there for a purpose to try to help you build a good football team. Im not saying they have to dramatically over pay for a guy? Well, really what I should say, is, when you have a guy like Birk who's available on the market, he is going to demand a lot of coin.

But that how FA has evolved nowadays. The economical aspect of paying for players is outrageous. when good players are available, you're gonna have to pay for what you get. I believe that. If you want to constantly try to bargain and find a "gem" how often does it happen where you see a guy whom you pay "cheap" and he turns out to be a star? When that happens, great. But, you can't be totally dependent on those type of situations as the Chiefs are.

If you want to sign vets, get a good vets in here. I don't disagree with that. You sign him to a 3 or 4 year contract whatever, and draft a young guy at his position. Is it better to learn from Ray Lewis or Mike Vrabel? Is it better to learn from Mike Goff or Matt Birk? There is a difference.